Weltschmertz!

I haven't posted for a while due to a combination of weltschmertz and ennui and then just when I thought I might have something slightly interesting to post about, my intertubes went pear-shaped.

Now that I've been reconnected to the vitriolic webospherospace (thanks to the excellence of Comcast technician Saint Lopez) normal bitching and whining will be resumed as soon a possible.

The GOP God Squad

" When a person says, "My faith doesn't affect my decision- making," I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to impact their decision process.”
(Governor Mike Huckabee, GOP Presidential Candidate Debate. May 3 2007)

As the GOP has so-decidedly become “God’s Own Party” I think the moderators of the debates should include the “faith factor” in every single question they ask the candidates, so that we can all gain some deeper understanding of how their religious convictions might affect their policies.

Such as:

Given that the 7th Commandment is “thou shalt not commit adultery”, and that the biblical punishment for adultery is death by stoning, how would you apply these to current laws concerning marriage and divorce?

As the 2nd Commandment states that “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,” and that we know from the Bible that Jesus sits at the right hand of God in Heaven” would you seek ban the sculpted depictions of Christ’s crucifixion, or would simply no longer recognize the tax-exempt status of religious organizations who continued their use because as they would be violating God’s law they wouldn’t be practicing a legitimate faith?

As we are all God’s children and as He is a loving God who watches over all of us, would you eliminate all health and safety regulations, or would there simply be an exemption for regular church-going Christians?

“Homosexuals are an abomination unto the lord and any man that lieth with another man shall be stoned to death.” Do you agree with that statement, and if so would you set up a separate government department devoted to that task—and how would you pay for that—or would that responsibility be tasked to the DHS?

When it comes the safety our brave men and women serving in Iraq would you support regular burnt offerings to the Lord our God accompanied by prayers, or do you think $100 billion a year in appropriations is sufficient?

A traditional concern of Conservatives in particular is excessive government, government waste and the environment. As President would you consider, for example, replacing the presidential armored limousines with in-line skates or removing the engines from Air Force One and just fly on the power of faith, or what?

Love Letters for Libby

Justice Walton handed down concurrent 15-month and 30-month sentences to former Cheney Chief of Staff, “Scooter” Libby, found guilty of lying under oath and obstructing justice regarding the investigation into the exposure of covert CIA agent and WMD specialist Valerie Plame-- despite a letter-writing campaign by some 174 friends and colleagues pleading for leniency (versus 24 non-friends urging maximum time, which is what he got).

And oh what letters they are! And also, oh what letters they aren’t!

Back in February of this year John Podhoretz wrote an article entitled The Libby Farce: It’s a Trial About Nothing

“Now, Scooter Libby is an old friend of mine, and I think he is a great public servant and a patriot, and I would dearly love to see him acquitted”

But going by Raw Story’s summation of Libby’s supporters’ letters, Libby’s old friend J-Pod seems to have decided to STFU since then.
Dick Cheney declared “Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known” in an official statement on 10/28/2005 as well as in an hour-long interview with Chris Wallace on FOX, but apparently he couldn’t pen a letter of support, presumably due to other obligations.
Former Solicitor General Theodore Olsen who personally knows “what a prosecutor with unlimited time and resources can come up with after endless probing” also seems to have been otherwise occupied. (Giggle if you really must.)

In fact it’s worth noting whose expressions of support are still posted on the Libby Legal Defense Trust website and who then actually appealed to the judge.

But in addition to those who did and didn’t write on Libby’s behalf, what was actually written struck me as very interesting and not particularly helpful to Libby or to the reputations of the respective authors.
Here for your amusement and amazement are some excerpts (full texts here at The Smoking Gun) some of which are quite revealing--as well of course, my comments.

Rumsfeld--“He is the type of person others can hold up to their children and grandchildren as an example of a truly honorable public servant”

Except for being a felon of course. But won’t somebody think of the children—and the grandchildren!

Wolfowitz--“He made decisive contributions to the development of our first post-Cold War defense strategy—a shift that made possible a nearly 40% reduction in spending and force levels.”

Gee, I thought that was Clinton’s fault and Kerry’s fault and it weakened America!

Wolfowitz--“He and his staff provide critical analysis and support for the development of the famous “left hook” around Kuwait.”

So if it weren’t for Libby and his staff, General Schwarzkopf might have just driven straight ahead and taken more casualties? Thanks Scooter, for showing a General how to fight a war!

Wolfowitz--“Mr. Libby played an influential role…in developing policy and strategy… including responses to various terrorist threats, the North Korean nuclear issue... the Middle East peace process and the strategy and policy for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

How very interesting that Wolfowitz should use this situation to credit Libby’s influence and by implication dilute his own.

Wolfowitz--“…he was a strong advocate for a more rapid build-up of the Iraqi army and a more rapid transfer to of sovereignty to the Iraqis, points on which history will prove him to have been prescient.”

If indeed Libby was such an advocate, so too was Wolfowitz—it was the one part of his own thinking that acknowledged at least some degree of pragmatic realism. But what does any of this have to do with Libby lying and obstructing justice in an investigation of the exposure of a CIA agent? Nothing!
But then Wolfowitz finally finds something pertinent to say about Libby when he praises Libby for:

Wolfowitz--“…his effort to persuade a newspaper not to publish information that would have endangered the life of a covert CIA agent working overseas.”

Really? What a patriot! Why couldn’t he similarly persuade Robert Novak not to publish? Didn’t Novak care about National Security? (umm…I guess not).

United Nations mole John “The Angry Walrus” Bolton helpfully writes:

Bolton---“I have myself been to meetings after which I could not remember what agency or Department most people worked for or why they were even there.”

Well, John, maybe that’s because you don’t even know why the United Nations even exists—but your own arrogance and ignorance doesn’t excuse Libby’s obvious lies.

Throughout the letters there is a consensus that Libby was a personable man, devoid of an overarching ego or Machiavellian mindset and therefore the notion that Libby might have been involved in a cover-up or conspiracy must be some kind of mistake.

But in trying to paint a picture of Libby as a selfless and tireless public servant (and totally not a megalomaniacal prick like everyone else) his supporters don’t skimp in praising him for his deep and wide involvement in pretty much every major foreign policy and national security issue---errrm…except for the justifications for invading Iraq and the outing of Plame of course—even though he was Cheney’s Chief of Staff.

His friends also haven’t helped him in talking-up his legal career—as a lawyer himself one would have expected to have mounted a solid defense and tell the truth. But he didn’t, because he couldn’t without implicating Cheney.

“Scooter” isn’t the nickname of a mastermind or a powerbroker, but of “a good soldier” (as one supporter has specifically described him and which most others imply). And Scooter wasn’t indicted for the leak—as right-wing harpies like Victoria Toensing kept maliciously claiming--he was indicted and convicted for obstructing the investigation into the leak.

Scooter was and is low-hanging fruit and if he really was the forthright and upstanding individual his friends claim, he wouldn’t have lied to save Cheney’s ass. But he did because he’s a “good soldier” and just follows orders.

Cheney hasn’t exactly rushed to Libby’s defense or offered anything like heartfelt support (perhaps understandable since he’s a cyborg) and has since only provided soulless single-sentence comments after being pressed to say anything at all.

As Scooter sits in his cell, I wonder if he’ll reflect on the nature of his relationship with Cheney? What conclusions might he draw about the superior he so faithfully served who couldn’t be bothered to write a character-letter to the judge on his behalf? Only time will tell.

But though Wolfowitz managed the longest and whiniest screed, the most maudlin and saccharine effort was by political dominatrix Mary Matalin. According to her, Scooter Libby shouldn’t go to jail because he was the world’s greatest dad and fake uncle and “loved all families” (her emphasis), but most especially the Cheney family spawn, and to make her fine legal point she provides the following example of Libby’s love:

Matalin—“While on one of our early “undisclosed location” work trips (which were…unanticipated by our families and us […] the Cheney grandchildren were required to accompany us, yanked out of school and away from their much-awaited night of Trick-or-Treating. Scooter flew into action, finding treats and creating costumes…it took hours and a very creative effort on his part.”

WTF? I mean, really, What the F-ing F?!! What else is there to say?

If Libby had spent a bit more time loving the Constitution and the law and the cares and needs of citizens rather than Dick Cheney and his grand-rugrats, maybe he wouldn’t be going to jail.

Still, at least he’ll be able to read and re-read the love-letters from all his friends—except, that is, from his one true love, Dick Cheney. Sadly for Libby, Cheney seems to be, like, so over him.

(Someone hand me a tissue, I think my allergies are playing up--or is someone chopping onions in here?)

God, Guns and Garda World

NOTE: I've edited this from yesterday's original--removed some unneccessary whining about the press and tightened things up a bit.

A couple of days ago dozens of men in new Iraqi police uniforms walked into the Finance Ministry in the Green Zone (Correction: The Ministry is NOT in the Green Zone) , walked out with five Britons and drove off in their new police SUV’s without any interference.

Much of the press coverage (mostly from AP and Reuters) reads like this…

“Hundreds of Iraqi and U.S. troops cordoned off sections of Baghdad's Sadr City slum early Wednesday and conducted a series of raids in an apparent effort to find five British citizens” (emphasis added).

This terminology reminded me of the original reporting of the four Blackwater "contractors" who were ambushed. mutilated and strung up on a bridge in Fallujah 3 years ago.
"U.S. officials said the civilians were killed in a grenade attack by suspected insurgents.." (CNN May 6 2004)

It eventually transpired that the "civilians" weren't hired for their truck-driving skills--they were actually ex-US military providing armed escort with licence to kill and total immunity from military, national and international law--hardly the definition of a "civilian" by anyone's standards.

So as the press is once again demonstrating a complete lack of curiosity I thought I'd dig a little deeper.

You’ll note from the press reports that the abductees are being generally referred to as “citizens”. In one or two instances it has been noted that 4 of the 5 were “security guards” working for an outfit called GardaWorld.

(Now I know things are pretty bad in Iraq, but to have four security guards protecting one individual inside the Green Zone? Is that extravagant, or sensible? In this instance apparently it’s neither.)

GardaWorld is the “Global Risk Security Group” of Garda World Security Corporation which, judging by its company literature is pretty impressed with itself and insists we should be impressed too.
It is one of many “security “ firms operating in Iraq, like the US-based Blackwater, Titan, CACI, ESS, Triple Canopy, Fluor. the UK–based Aegis and others.

Garda however is Canadian which is interesting because the Canadian government stayed out of the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq, as did Chile--which I mention because Blackwater has employed a couple of hundred Chileans in Iraq following which Chile passed a law making it illegal for ex-military to participate in conflicts without government sanction.
Canada apparently has no such law and it is unlikely the current PM and Bush admirer Stephen Harper would sign such a thing willingly.

(RedTory's post Canada's 'Global Risk' Mercenaries has more background on Garda and some salient questions)

There are some significant differences between Garda and Blackwater, but some notable similarities too.
Blackwater was founded by Erik Prince, a Navy SEAL who interestingly was also heir to an auto-accessory manufacturing fortune. Prince leveraged his wealthy family’s political contacts as well as his own military connections to establish a private paramilitary training facility in North Carolina in 1997.

Garda started out in 1995 as a general security firm providing cash-handling and office security and expanded into investigations and risk-management.

Blackwater (whose "vision" is to "support security, peace, freedom, and democracy everywhere") has become the largest and best-equipped mercenary force in the world thanks to the privatizing, militaristic Bush administration.

Garda meanwhile, dominated by sales and marketing entrepreneurs, expanded more through ordinary commercial acquisitions but just lately acquired Kroll Security International and thus a significant entry into the lucrative personal security business thriving in Iraq.

Aside from the cash-cow that is Iraq, there’s one other thing that these two companies share—a religious element.

Blackwater is infused with conservative religious purpose (neatly summed by founder Erik Prince's blurb of a book called "Christian Fatherhood: The Eight Commitment's of St. Joseph's Convenant Keepers" which he said "provides men with the basic training they need to complete their mission") . And Garda seems to have a religious connection of its own; on its website it proudly states that it is “the recipient of The Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East (FRRME) 2007 Prize for Peace in the Middle East.”

The FRRME is chaired by Lord Carey a former Archbishop of Canterbury and compared to US religious poobahs, Carey is practically the antichrist—he allowed women to be ordained in the Anglican church, prefers talking to Muslims instead of bombing them and though he thinks homosexuality is a sin he seems to have no problem with gay civil unions (but “marriage” is verboten).

Now this “Peace Prize” wasn’t presented in a church or the FRRME’s UK headquarters or Garda’s HQ in Montreal--it was presented in a ceremony in the Pentagon!

“GardaWorld has provided an outstanding service to every aspect of our work in Iraq and in reality is the biggest contributor to our efforts of peace-making.” (said the President of FRRME Rev. Canon Andrew White).

The FRRME’s mission apparently is to expunge religious violence and intolerance--so they pal-around with the Bush administration and his Christian soldiers in the military? Well good luck with that whole combating religious violence and intolerance thing!

I call bullshit on that—they’re just profiting off the Iraq like everyone else. Where do they get the money to hire their security in Baghdad? (yes, they are there in the Green Zone being protected by private guards and the US military—not by God!)

So why should the US risk its soldiers to recover a handful of abducted British citizens provided by a Canadian company doing business in the middle of a warzone?

Because the US government is in the corporate religious war business now and it needs to look after its own—not its own citizens or citizen soldiers, but the contractors and middlemen that keep the business going.

P.S.

For more on the nexus of war, business and religion I recommend Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill.

At Least You've Got Your Health

For no good reason apparently I just haven't gotten myself together to post for a while. Though my individual efforts have no influence on important matters, the collective efforts of regular bloggers have changed our world. So it's back on the horse again, as it were.

As Shakespeare wrote in Henry the Fifth:

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

So it is with blogging methinks....ahem...

No battle was won that e'er was fought by those that sat in silent thought
Their counsel kept as secret treasure for fear of being held to measure,
The gold of silence oft is a weight when last unpursed is spent too late
To change the trade thus far agreed nor satisfy each trader's need.
For to the bold go victor's spoils, and so to them go victim's oils.

Sorry, I got carried away there...anywhoo....

Michael Moore’s latest ‘opinion-reportorial’ on US health care, Sicko, may actually have the same kind of impact that “An Inconvenient Truth” has.

Here’s a personal comparison of the UK’s National Health System and the US “system”.

I was born at home (whilst the house was still being built, actually)—no hospital visit necessary, just the attendance of a midwife.

Even though my father was a manager at BOAC his pay was miserable and we led a frugal life (especially compared to today--we didn’t get a car until I was eight and then it was the cheapest—a Mini-Van). Mum got a job then. We got our first TV when I was ten (1970). My clothes were all hand-me-downs until I was 11. I got my first (and only) new bike at 13.

But of all the things my parents struggled to afford, health-care was never a problem thanks to the National Health Service.

We had regular checkups at school (not just for lice or “nits” but general health too), and doctors would make house-calls on request. From one of these my eldest brother was found to have a problem which further examination showed to be a hole in his heart.
He spent two weeks at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital where he was operated-on in one of the first heart surgeries of its kind (this was in 1964). It didn’t cost my parents a penny.

When I was 13 I jumped-off a moving train (out of perceived necessity, not for a dare) fractured my skull and spent two of my seven days in hospital unconscious, all at no cost beyond the normal automatic NHS contributions.

In my second year in the US my throat began to feel tender and it was painful to swallow. It got so bad I could only eat soup and yoghourt, and I was running a temperature.
I was earning $4 an hour (no health insurance of course) and knowing the cost of health care I kept working and hoped my condition would just go away (I’d never had anything worse than a cold before).
Luckily for me a regular customer at my store was a male nurse who worked at Bellevue Hospital. He noticed my throat was swollen, gave me an impromptu exam right there and then literally dragged me up the block to the E.R., telling me not to worry about the expense.
It turned out I had a temperature of 104 and a virulent form of strep-throat. Fascinated interns made notes whilst the ENT specialist stuck me with an antibiotic and told me my throat was so swollen that I would otherwise have been dying from asphyxiation within an hour. The diagnosis and cure had taken about an hour altogether and totaled a week’s wages for me.

Years later working as a cabinetmaker my hand slipped into a table-saw blade. I broke two fingers and the tip of one of them was not-very neatly split laterally for about ½ an inch under the nail. The doctor took off the nail, washed out the wound, closed it up with five stitches, put my nail back on and as a precaution against infection recommended I stay for two days on an antibiotic drip. I was put on a gurney for no obvious reason and whilst an available bed was being looked-for I was wheeled into a supply closet where I was re-discovered six hours later.
I compare that to when as a 14 year-old I accidentally sliced the top of my thumb off; I got sixteen stitches from an ex-seamstress Indian nurse and, job done, was sent home immediately. My thumb looks normal, my left index finger looks odd and the bill for my saw accident was $2000. Worker’s compensation covered the cost of my saw incident, but of course the contribution went up by 40%.

The last six weeks of my mother’s life were spent in hospital; a week in the ICU and then under constant care, attached to various necessary life-sustaining tubes (but no major machinery). Again, the NHS took care of everything, we had no forms to fill-out or bills to pay.

The UK’s NHS was established as a flexible investment in the public and the future. Basic nationwide health-care serves both moral and practical needs. A healthy society is a stable and productive society. It is high time that the US realized that the notion of the individual as the salient characteristic of this nation’s identity is a myth, and a destructive one at that—and I think that’s the psychology behind many of the US’s problems.

The US as a nation needs to understand that it has a responsibility to care for its own. It needs to grow up. It has to apply it’s founding humanistic values on a nationwide scale by taking care of the poor and downtrodden, of being neighbourly and pitching-in and working hard in the present to make a better future. A real national health system would be about as democratic and American as it gets.

Noodling on Goodling

The consensus is that Monica Goodling is the key witness to the US attorney firings. Judging by the way she went to ground immediately the scandal broke she’s probably not psychologically very well-equipped to parry the questions she’ll be asked by the Judiciary Committee (and it seems not professionally well-equipped either) but it will depend on where she can draw her strength from—Jesus, I suppose.

Gonzalez might offer her some kind of support but although he hasn’t been fired his word doesn’t have authority now and even some of the Republicans can’t stomach him anymore, nor Sampson and McNulty who are similarly damaged goods.
Moreover Eric Lipton at the NY Times reports various former and current DOJ officials citing Goodling for her inappropriate moralistic, political and religious vetting of job candidates (whom she was often also not professionally qualified to judge).

With no-one rushing to her defense, Monica seems isolated. No doubt there will be some Republicans on the committee who will paint her as a victim, which was her very first defense in pleading the Fifth—but that will be largely moot given her new immunity status.

So where do Monica’s loyalties ultimately lie? And where do Bush’s, Rove’s and Gonzalez’s loyalties lie? Given their self-supporting nature and their own smug sense of immunity they may have chosen just to sit back and watch, confident that they can handle any fallout whether Monica takes one for the team or spills the beans.

If Monica really has been thrown to the wolves and goes with full disclosure, she may find the retribution from Rove worse than any punishment she might take from keeping her mouth shut and being held in contempt. And if she thinks Jesus can save her…well good luck with that Ms.Goodling.

PS

Speaking of Jesus, some tool deposited this little pile of flaming “Christian” poop in my Prince Harry post comments after nearly two weeks of inactivity there.

“Does he like girls to? You peasents in Isles are so quiant...I guess all the manly types migrated to American and saved you ass during serveral wars.Did you ever pay us for that?”

Apparently this commenter is convinced that people of his ilk are in danger of being turned gay—this is the only subject he has written about on his own blog. Obsessive, that’s what it is. Odd that he should feel the need to comment on my blog when I have yet to write anything about gays at all (oh, except for my riff on Mark Foley who is of course Christian and Republican and hates gays too because they always seem to be sticking their cocks in his mouth, or something like that). What with these types being so connected to God and Jesus I have to wonder why God or Jesus just can’t fix the problem? Maybe God needs an incentive from this guy—like maybe if he was prepared to sacrifice his son or something?

Prince Harry

It seems Prince Harry’s planned deployment to Iraq is being “reviewed”.

The recent US “surge” has had no more effect than to redistribute the violence and possibly made the situation more volatile; the British who have served in the southern region around Basra have had 11 killed so far this month.

Sir John Nott, Conservative defence secretary during the Falklands War, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One that he was opposed to [The prince’s deployment ]
"The danger is that Prince Harry will be hazarding the lives of other soldiers and young officers and I think that's not right."

Sir John said the issue of Harry's deployment was different from his uncle's [Prince Andrew] because the war in Iraq was "much more fraught".
"There was complete public support for the Falklands campaign, there certainly isn't for Iraq," he said.
"It raises political and constitutional issues. The situation in Iraq is clearly extremely difficult, particularly with armoured cars."

Despite all its faults, the majority of the British public still holds the monarchy very dear—it is part of British identity, for better or worse.

As a political issue I’d estimate the British would be extremely pissed-off if Harry, who has consistently said he wants to serve with his fellow soldiers in Iraq, wasn’t allowed to go.
They majority is against the war but they can still support an individual’s service, just as so many do here in the US.

Indeed the Royal family is not supposed to be a political institution itself, that’s one major reason why it is maintained. Another major reason is that the Monarchy is supposed to serve the nation---and serving in the Army is a way for Harry to do that, and as a good soldier he wants to serve with his troops and his mates.

His status as a prince is frankly not as significant to the fabric of British society as Sir John Nott would like to think—he’s not the direct heir to the throne (he’s third in line). If he were killed or injured he would suffer no more than others who have served, and whose deployments were never tempered by political concerns for their well-being.

It would be altogether better if the British would end their participation in this illegal occupation and save Harry and everyone else from maintaining it.

But if Harry is a competent soldier then external politics should not prevent him from doing his duty, otherwise what’s the bloody point of Prince Harry’s military service in the first place?

Scandals Ain’t What They Used To Be.

The most obvious scandal that comes to my mind regarding Eisenhower’s administration was Joe McCarthy’s Un-American Activities Committee hearings (he didn’t actually create the Committee, but he came to dominate it), wherein his methods of investigation and rabid zeal became a farce and led to the writing of the 5th Amendment.

For Kennedy it seems the major scandal was the Bay of Pigs invasion; an ideologically driven, misguided and impractical covert “regime change” scheme concocted and cocked-up by rabid CIA executives, but nonetheless “green-lighted” by Kennedy. Kennedy’s infidelity didn’t really come to light until sometime after his assignation.

Johnson’s most obvious political crisis revolved around the blatant lying of his Defense Secretary Robert McNamara regarding progress in Vietnam (there was none) and draft-avoidance by the rich and well connected.

Nixon inherited the shambles of Vietnam and escalated US involvement to include chemical warfare and secret incursions into Cambodia, to no clear effect. Continued draft-dodging and especially inadequate care of veterans also made headlines, as did the shootings of student protesters at Kent State. But the biggest scandal was of course “Watergate” when, charged with lying to Congress, obstructing justice, subverting the Constitution, money-laundering and being complicit in a burglary Nixon resigned as he was about to be impeached.

As an interim president Gerald Ford didn’t have the time or the personality to get into much trouble but his pardon for Nixon was met with howls of discontent—not least because he was pardoned Nixon for his presumed (and very evident) guilt, even though he wasn’t actually convicted.

Carter’s inability to stem the increasing cost of gasoline due to actions by OPEC made him unpopular, and the antics of his boozy brother Billy were an embarrassment but it seems the disastrous attempt to rescue the American hostages of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard brought him down.

Reagan’s claim to fame was of course the Iran-Contra affair. In an attempt to release American hostages held by pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon, Reagan’s administration sold weapons to Iran even though any such trade had been made illegal. Worse still the money from those sales was then used to provide weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels to help them overthrow the popular Sandinista government--which had seized control after the US had stopped subsidizing the previous president, Somoza, due to American public disgust with the US supporting a brutal “anti-communist” dictator. Obstruction of justice demonstrably occurred when Fawn Hall was found to have shredded pertinent documents.
Reagan first lied about the existence of the program, then blamed it all on subordinates and then in an address to the nation admitted to some kind of brain-fart about the scheme, basically claiming that somehow he didn’t know what he was doing! But the powers that be decided not to impeach to avoid “another Watergate”.

By that decision a new standard of accountability and scandal was now set.

Ex-chairman of the RNC, vigorous defender of Nixon and Reagan’s Vice President swore he was “out of the loop” regarding Iran Contra and so with an apparently clean record succeeded Reagan as the 41st President. He managed to avoid any major scandals s until the end of his Presidency when he pardoned half a dozen people involved in Iran-Contra most notably Caspar Weinberger whose indictment stated that he had records of Bush’s active participation in Iran-Contra after all. As Weinberger was indicted but still awaiting trial, Bush pardoned him for crimes he hadn’t yet been proven to have committed—ergo Bush’s pre-emptive pardon made Weinberger both guilty and innocent at the same time (and therefore Bush implicated himself in lying to Congress about his own involvement too). But before that can of worms could be opened Bush Sr. failed to get re-elected because of the recession he’d inherited from Reagan’s “voodoo economics” (Bush’s own critical description of Reagan’s “supply-side economics”) about which he had done nothing. Once again the powers that be decided to ignore the whole matter to spare the public any further disillusionment about politics and the Presidency.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 the Republicans had already begun to label him “slick Willie”—an allusion to his charm and salesmanship that would take-on a different meaning in the popular consciousness later-on.
In the 1994 midterm elections the Republicans won majorities in the House and the Senate and beginning in 1995 began an aggressive examination of Clinton’s present and past, following an impressive list of allegations that included crooked land-deals, cronyism, rape, drug dealing and even murder, all of which were intensely investigated and dismissed for lack of evidence or found to be utterly false. Nonetheless one line of investigation did bear fruit and after two years and almost fifty-million dollars of public expense it was discovered that Bill Clinton had been receiving extra-marital blowjobs during office hours from Monica Lewinsky. Clinton lied under oath about the sexual relations and although the House voted for impeachment he was acquitted by the Senate, a decision most likely influenced by public opinion which presented the majority view that Clinton’s personal peccadillo hadn’t affected his performance in office and that all the investigations—especially the Lewinsky case---had been a waste of time and money.
Despite being faced with opposition majorities in both House and Senate for over half of his tenure he averaged approval ratings between 50 to 60 percent and left the office with a 68% approval rating—beating the much vaunted Ronald Reagan by a couple of points.

So let us review shall we?

Eisenhower apparently didn’t break any laws, but he supported McCarthy’s actions in general. A new civil-rights amendment was introduced in reaction to the abuse of political power. Eisenhower was not directly involved in McCarthy’s abuse of power.
Kennedy approved a disastrous anti-communist adventure but was basically vindicated in the Cuban missile crisis and was given a pass by the press for his infidelity and become a martyr due to his assassination.
Johnson maintained the deceits about Vietnam and added to them but was never called to account.
Nixon broke several laws and subverted the Constitution. He resigned before being impeached, delaying conviction.
Ford secured Nixon from ever being brought to trial by preemptive pardon.
Reagan illegally sold arms to a declared terrorist state and from the proceeds illegally armed murderous opposition to a popular government, and lied about all of it. Yet despite having clearly broken several laws, Reagan was never held to account.
George Bush Sr. maintained the “pass” given Reagan for four years and then by pardoning half a dozen convicted and/or indicted Iran-Contra participants by implication pardoning Reagan and most extraordinarily himself—thereby rendering himself, his colleagues and Reagan from any possible indictment, let alone prosecution.
Clinton was charged with multiple and very serious crimes but was found guilty only of lying about his sexual conduct.

So, going by my (admittedly incomplete) summaries where does George W. Bush, the 43rd President stand?
He wasn’t elected in 2000.
He took no action against Al-Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole which left 17 sailors dead.
He let his VP secretly collude with the oil industry to dictate the nation’s energy policy without public review.
He ignored over 50 warnings of terrorist attacks which were realized on 9/11, breaking his oath to defend the United States of America.
He secretly ordered mass surveillance of US communications, breaking the FISA law and in contravention of the 2nd Amendment and thus lied under oath about upholding the Constitution—another illegal act.
Going to war on false pretenses, intimidation of OMB staff, planting stories in the “free press”, intimidation of science staff, intimidation of the DOJ, using uniformed military for political rallies, using the Secretary of State as a campaign aide, leaking a covert CIA agent’s name, not keeping records, torturing civilians, incarceration without charge trial or representation, suspending Habeas Corpus, ignoring international treaties (illegal)---I could go on, and on and on and on and on and on and on…

Nixon was investigated over Watergate and faced impeachment.
Reagan was investigated over Iran Contra and got off scott-free.
George H.W. Bush was never investigated over Iran Contra and basically pardoned himself, just in case.
Clinton was investigated over Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, the Travel
Office, faced impeachment only overlying about blow-jobs, and was acquitted.
And George W. Bush? Not one investigation….NOT ONE!!!

I tell you, scandals ain’t what they used to be!

Schumer Nails Gonzo

Close to the end of AG Gonzalez's testimony....

Schumer summarized Gonzale’s testimony, saying that he had failed the three criteria or tests by which his testimony was expected to be judged today by the committee…

Gonzo responded that the allegations to which he was being subjected required proof, and the onus of proof (against Gonzo) lay with the committer---i.e. innocent until proven guilty—fair enough one might think…BUT…)
Schumer responds that the hearing is not a court of law (something Gonzalez should know of course—my interjection) and that it is about why the USAs were fired…the onus (says Schumer) is on Gonzalez to provide clear justifications for their firings —professional performance— for which he has failed to provide any clear evidence, and especially when the evidence (evaluations and prosecution records) contradict Gonzos public justifications for firing them.

No response from Gonzo.

NRA: Never Responsible for Actions?

Was there really anything remarkable about the Virginia Tech shootings other than the death toll?

Deadliest Mass Shootings (10 or more dead) in Western Democracies
1966-2002
26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA

Judging from these statistics ‘Guns don’t massacre people; people who legally own guns do’ (usually).

Now it is perfectly possible to buy a gun sane and then become mentally unbalanced later and go on a rampage, so there’s no preventing that whilst guns are legally available.
In the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter was apparently demonstrably mentally unbalanced and a recorded risk according to police records which, had a background check been run and professional competency applied there ought not to have been a gun sale. That wouldn’t necessarily have prevented Cho-Seung–Hui from mass murder, but it would have made things more difficult.

Last I checked their website, the NRA is waiting “for all the facts” before making any comment. How very ‘responsible’ of them. The most salient fact at the moment is that Seung –Hui was able to buy a gun without a background check that could have revealed he was a risk. The legislation allowing him to do that was the result of lobbying efforts by the NRA who are of course headquartered in Virginia.

Whilst the NRA remains silent for the moment, the apologists (who never apologize) have already come out with guns blazing (pun intended).

A favorite argument is that if guns were allowed on campus the students could have fought back. So if all students carried guns any argument or even the sense of a threat could be settled with a shooting. Brilliant! It was the easy availability of guns that allowed Seung-Hui to begin killing.

People who kill either themselves or others with guns are gun-owners (legal or illegal), DUH! It is the purpose of a gun to facilitate killing.

The self-defense argument doesn’t wash either. At least as many people get killed when defending themselves with guns as those who don’t and as often as not bystanders get wounded and killed too.

Most gun-owners don’t intend to kill but they must certainly entertain the possibility that they will use their gun—why own one otherwise? And those citizens who do decide for whatever reason, to kill, use guns to do so more than any other means. Why? Because they are effective and easily available, more so in some states such as Virginia, then others.

I can’t see any practical way to eliminate private gun-ownership completely in the interests of general public safety given the huge numbers of guns already in circulation. But the constant lobbying by the NRA to make guns as easily available as possible guarantees that their illegal use is more prevalent than needs be and that many of the deaths that result are in part the NRA’s responsibility.